From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-21 12:05:35
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Larry Evans wrote:
>>> However, I'd imagine some people would want
>>> this restricted to just two elements, which could be
>>> done with something like:
>>> And now, if size<Args>::value is
>>> restricted to the Arity in
>>> tag_arity<shift_right,Arity> then it
>>> would be restricted to 2.
>> Users may very well want to restrict tag::plus to arity 2 *in their
>> domain*, but they shouldn't be foisting that decision on other consumers
>> of Proto. The best way to ensure that expressions have the arity you
>> expect is to encode that in the grammar for your domain, and check it
>> with proto::matches.
> I'm nowhere near being an expert, but how would a BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT
> fit in ensuring that Args has the correct arity provided in the
What do you mean by "correct" here?
> construction of expr<>? Would there be a way to statically assert that
> 'Args' has arity 'Arity' from within Proto? Or would that be too much
Oh, Arity is the size of Args by default. expr<> is defined like:
struct expr<Tag, Args, long Arity = Args::size>
Nowhere does Proto enforce that Arity really *is* Args::size, though.
> compile time trouble on top of all the compile time burdens
> Proto+Fusion+MPL already bring?
I don't think a static assert would be very expensive, but I also don't
think it would add much safety. In fact, it would force me to remove an
optimization in matches.hpp, where I fudge the Arity parameter to save a
few template instantiations.
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk